ok sorry for the derailment here guys but i gotta point something out. Last year I called out WJB on being particularly negative. I feel it is in my place to do it again...only this time in defense of WJB. on this page, he has been civil and has not once directly insulted Steensn...but look at the civility he has gotten in return.

Quote:

You are really showing some skill at ignorance now...

Quote:

Ok, now you are being a douche

Quote:

Why can;t you make grown up arguments

Quote:

I'm amazed you got into lawschool.

not once has he retaliated with the personal attacks. he HAS debated you for sure...but he has made it no where near as personal as you have. and that is just this page of this thread. it's been going on in other threads as well. your first response to someone disagreing with you used to be "hogwash" and "muddy the waters" kinda crap. now its insults. I wasnt sure if you were aware that this was becomming a habit so I figured i'd point it out to you.

/ rant

_________________2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion

September 24th, 2011, 9:42 am

steensn

RIP Killer

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pmPosts: 13429

Re: Report: White House tried to rush Solyndra loan

I tend to put conversations together over a period of time. If I am coming off unfair in this thread it is because I view WJB as a whole on this topic and other ones.

I will point out that ignorant is NOT a bad word, I'll continue to use it because it describes the situation. If he chooses to purposefully not take in the goldmine of industry inside info I give him and respond continually as if I never posted it then that is exactly what ignorant is. I will defend the use of that word till I die, I backed up using that word with a detailed REASON as well.

I consider someone purposefully being ignorant and making the same stupid arguments argumentative which to me is just as bad as "calling names." IMO, seemingly purposefully making stupid arguments over and over and requesting over the top proof SHOWING you never took the time to even investigate the claim... that is a VERY douche move especialy when you sit there are argue it as fact over and over again.

I know people think that anyone can make any claim and it means nothing, but to make claims that WJB does over and over, knowing he is a lawyer, more than surprises me. A lawyer should know what it takes to make a case. WJB walking into court making the kind of arguments he makes on these threads he wouldn't last one second. I consider WJB being a jerk in these threads because I expect so much more out of him as he is simply much more intelligent than he portrays here. At some point I HAVE to call that out because to me it is either he simply is not as smart as I give him credit for or he is purposefully not using his intelligence in this situation. I am voting for the later because I truly think he is smarter than what he is portraying here in this thread, the WTG thread, and the OSU thread. I cannot put his arguments and his intelligence together, they seem like they belong to two different people.

At some point I have to choose whether he is purposefully being ignorant or he really isn't as smart as I give him credit for. Look at my post above, I tried to point out that maybe he really just does not get how things work and that is my fault for assuming he'd understand. I'd rather think he is smarter than that and he is just being a jerk.

Pick your flavor, but I expect more from people and when they are not giving any effort and just being argumentative I feel a need to call that out.

ok i get all that. but are you honestly telling me you cant call him out without belittling yourself with the direct insults?

it's not him you are making look bad when you do that. you realize that right?

_________________2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion

September 24th, 2011, 12:39 pm

steensn

RIP Killer

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pmPosts: 13429

Re: Report: White House tried to rush Solyndra loan

I feel as I have tried over and over and I was trying to elevate and put a description to how I see him acting. The descriptions exist because they describe something. I've spelled it out over and over but at some point the straight up word in our language for it clears things up so I don't have to type it out again and again. Go read the OSU thread or the wind turbine thread or this one. I went and described everything more than enough times to be fair in great detail. At some point if someone is making little kid arguments then you just have to say it with the hope that elevating it will make it more clear so they can stop it. I didn't just say those things without significant explanation of the why, t some point you need a contrast to make the point if someone simply isn't getting it. If everyone wants to lock on a few words out of context, then they will, I can't change that.

ok so I would advise 2 things...you dont HAVE to respond to every post. i see that sometimes he does it on purpose. I cant deny that I laugh every time he chimes in with the wind turbines being ugly. i think everyone on the board who reads that knows that he does that just to ruffle your feathers a lil bit.

and 2..if you MUST reply to every single post (and yes I know you must) you can do without the name calling. if you truely feel he is dragging down the intelligence does it really make sense to lower yourself down with the name calling?

look im not judging, lord knows once in a blue moon a special moron comes along and I feel the need to belittle the crap outta them. I think everyone is guilty, but you are too heavy of a poster to let name calling enter a large amounts of your posts! it truely demeans you, sadly.

and one last comment and then im done I swear.......we are ALL rooting for the same team...and that team is doing AWSOME for the first time in 12 years...cant we all just get along and enjoy the cornbread and coolaid??

/derailment

_________________2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion

September 24th, 2011, 1:00 pm

steensn

RIP Killer

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pmPosts: 13429

Re: Report: White House tried to rush Solyndra loan

I'm not trying to belittle, I'm trying to get him to act how smart he really is. It's not "name calling" in the sense people want to make it every time someone uses the word. Take stuff in context...

Secondly, I don't take is personally, so to me it isn't a "fight."

Thirdly, I post because I want a discussion. I don't have to respond to every single post but neither do you guys so it goes both ways. I don't click on half the threads in this particular forum, just ones I have enough background knowledge on that I can speak knowledgeably. I post heavily in threads I know enough about and almost nill in ones I have no idea about.

You are the only claiming wind can operate on it's own, basically you are building a straw man argument.

Now, you are simply lying. I've never said that wind could operate on it's own. In fact, I've always said that since wind couldn't operate on it's own, it shouldn't be subsidized at taxpayer expense.

No matter how much wind and solar energy is produced, we're still going to need the same amount of coal/gas/nuclear/hydro energy to keep the grid working when the wind ain't blowing and the sun ain't shining.

To put this in perspective, it's kinda like having two TVs in your living room. One of them is hooked up to cable, while the other one only gets local channels. You decide that you're gonna use the second set for local/network programming, and the first set for all cable programming. The local-only set is not necessary since the cable set can do the same thing and so much more. It's simply not needed, just like wind/solar and the other redundant energy sources that the libtards are attempting to cram down our throats.

Get your story straight without resorting to lying. If wind/solar went away, nobody would notice, but if coal/nuclear/gas/hydro went away, everybody would. Tell the truth for once, would you?

_________________

September 25th, 2011, 11:52 pm

steensn

RIP Killer

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pmPosts: 13429

Re: Report: White House tried to rush Solyndra loan

No, you are claiming that... for us! I'm not lying, you are creating a straw man because you simply don't know how it works.

But the part you don't understand is that you don't need 1 MW for every wind turbine or solar because it isn't that dractic. Wind across the US doesn't just dissappear out of no where and leave you with no power. As well the % of wind that you can sustain on the grid because of it's varyance is no more than 50%.

As long as there is something to supply power, losing one source wouldn't impact anyone so your point is moot. You totally ignored my whole post about plant life as well... thanks for showing again you'll ignore anything and overstate everything to make a ignorant post. I truly do not understand you and WJB's seemingly coordinated efforts to ignore how things really work even when explained to you.

Don't balk at the source, it is simply quoting a thrid party study. Try and stick with the DATA presented and your conjecture on them not dismissing it because of source.

This data basically shows that you want to prop up an energy source that has had 100 years od federal support in developement at a higher level from the start... yet not acknowledge how it came into being when it was an alternative source of energy? You want to use the money spend on wind/solar/etc. as proof they can't run on their own when the sources you identify as top options got MORE support financially through it's infancy to be what it is today?

Steensn, even you have to admit that the pie chart is one of the most disingenuous pieces of crap ever. It lists total subsides for Oil and Gas since 1918, Nuclear since 1947, Biofuels since 1980, and Renewables since 1994. Of course, those around the longest would have the greater slice of the pie. Why don't you use a chart that shows how much energy each of them have produced since those same dates and see what it looks like?

_________________

September 27th, 2011, 2:03 pm

steensn

RIP Killer

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pmPosts: 13429

Re: Report: White House tried to rush Solyndra loan

Fine, let's make it a ratio based on time.

Take the oil and gas (94 years), divide by the renewables (16 years) and get a ratio of 5.75 or 575% more time for O&G. Moving renewables to the same time period, it comes to $34.155 billion for renewables compared to $446.96 billion for O&G... hmmmm... not a good point there Sly, try harder looking at the data instead of baulking at first glance.

Further the second chart is the devil to your argument though. It is gov't spending from the start over the first 30 years put in 2010's #'s. Biofuels only beats renewables overall because it got a huge jump lately, it would be more on par over the life of renewables had it not gotten that jump.

Regarding the jab on energy produced int hat time period... you are saying that it is ok for the gov't to subsidize gas and oil heavily but not renewables? Total red herring comment... you are ignoring the argument being made with some distracting un important comment. Why did oil and gas do so well? Well using your logic on renewables above prior to this data it would be because they had heavy gov't help to become viable.

Please... REALLY look at this data instead of making comments without really thinking about the data.

Scandal: Our ever-campaigning president heads off to a fundraiser held by a politically connected businessman whose company took a $100 million stimulus tax credit. Solyndra didn't stop pay-for-play the "Chicago Way."

Tone-deaf somehow does not seem adequate to describe President Obama's silent indifference to the Solyndra scandal of his making as he rushes off to another fundraiser, a $25,000 per person affair in Missouri on Oct. 4 organized by another beneficiary of our stimulus tax dollars.

Tom Carnahan, of the Missouri Carnahans, arguably that state's most prominent political family, is listed on President Obama's campaign website as a host of the St. Louis fundraising extravaganza amid widespread unemployment and tanking markets.

Coincidentally, of course, Carnahan's energy development firm, Wind Capital Group, is the recipient of a $107 million federal tax credit to develop a wind power facility in his state.

We know that people support candidates who tend to share their interests and beliefs, and that an appearance of impropriety may be only that — an appearance of one. But there's a disturbing pattern here of an administration picking winners and losers, with an emphasis on losers who happen also to be donors.

There is also a disturbing disregard of basic economics and the national interest in the blind pursuit of leftist environmentalist ideology.

In the case of Solyndra, the solar panel manufacturer, we had a firm that even the administration had to know was going bankrupt. Yet it was made the first recipient of a green stimulus subsidy that favored a major Democratic donor, George Kaiser.

In another example, LightSquared, whose wireless broadband project jeopardizes the nation's GPS system on which the military, aviation and others increasingly depend, the scandal involved not only the rewarding of a major Democratic donor, Philip Falcone, by approving the dubious project, but the possible suborning of perjury in the congressional testimony of four-star Gen. William Shelton, head of the U.S. Space Command.

Subscribe to the IBD Editorials Podcast The Wind Capital Group's Gentry County, Mo., project, dubbed the BlueGrass Ridge Wind Farm, may be a more benign version of the administration's crony capitalism. But it remains a poster child for this administration's misplaced energy priorities.

The project consists of 27 massive turbines reaching 252 feet in the air. Each of the three blades are 140 feet long. Each turbine is rated to generate up to 2.1 megawatts of power.

This sounds good on paper and is when the wind is blowing. But rated capacity is not actual production.

The data make this clear. After decades of subsidies, wind provides only 1% of our electricity, compared to 49% for coal, 22% for natural gas, 19% for nuclear power and 7% for hydroelectric. Wind turbines generally operate at only 20% efficiency, compared to 85% for coal, gas and nuclear power plants.

A 2008 report by the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration reported that in 2007, while the average subsidy per megawatt hour for all energy sources was $1.65, the subsidy for wind and solar was about $24 per megawatt hour.

Daniel Kish, senior vice president for policy at the Institute for Energy Research, told Cybercast News Service that "without government subsidies or mandates, none of these energy sources exist, they just simply won't ... these energy sources are not as efficient as the sources of energy that the marketplace has picked and the consumers have picked to run the country."

President Obama has said we need to focus on the energy sources of the future and not those of the past that built the economic superpower that is now atrophying under his clueless leadership.

As he heads off to hear the musically soothing wind chimes of campaign contributions, we leave oil and coal in the ground and Americans standing in the unemployment line asking themselves, "Where are the jobs?"

Nice. Now, how about adding up all of the energy produced by each sector during those time frames and calculating the subsidy cost per MW? I know you won't do it since you wouldn't like the result.

Like I showed before in another thread, gas, oil, and coal are all subsidized at less than $1 per MW, while wind and solar are subsidized at over $20 per MW. Try again.

Sly, are you being ignorant on purpose at this point or do you not really get it at all? I'm trying to check to see whether you are just being obnoxious and dumb on purpose or you are just really not getting it.

You want to compare an energy source that has been highly subsidized for over 100 years and matured to our top energy source with an energy source comparatively still in its infancy? Then you want to crow about how much we are wasting financing renewables by how much O&G has benefitted by being subsidized dollar for dollar during it's first 30 years by 10-20 times or more than renewables? As well as say how wonderful nuclear is yet it cost more per kW/hr and has been subsidized to a greater extent than anything on the chart?

It's total and utter nonsense and it would be a whole lot easier to understand whether your playing dumb or actually just refuse to understand this simple and clear data.